New 255 BFG KM2 Wagon Wheels

[JohnnyC]

michelin 900r16....they now make 255/100r16 in the xzl patern

heres an michelin xl in the 900r16 mounted on an fj45 and two pics of the xzl...there are other manufactures that make a 900r16...but...these are the most agressive

 

[Flank]

The Michelins are both Military tires. I have a set of the 9.00x16 Xl's on my M101 trailer. 36-37" tall.

 

[ScottReb]

Got the same BFG's on my white 80 as well. Love them great on the road and off, so far. Only 2000 miles

 

[ScottyDog]

]My son's FJ62, my brother's FJ60 and my FZJ 80 run the same tire so we can share the same spares if necessary... Never know when you might get 2 flats on the trail. We've yet to use our spares except to rotate in....

We love this size tire. Nice height, without all the weight of a wider tire.

Here are pics of my 80 w/ 255's. FWIW, if you lift your truck you may need spacers. I'm at about 3.5" w/ J-Springs and OME heavies in the front. But without the spacers it created quite a bit of top heavy swaying and body roll..

I love these tires...

Scotty

 

[iptman]

I put 1 1/4" spacers on mine. Pushes out the tires to the edge of the flares. No complaints after about 5000 miles.

 

[jcarter]

Just wanted to send a thank you note for this post.

My 92 is our spare vehicle & get down to the river with a couple canoes on top. This summer, I slid all over with my stock BFG 31x10.5 KO's. Tread is low so time for new tires. With a 2.5" lift, taller tires to fill the big hole is in order. And since it's not my DD, knobby/noisy/agressive is fine. Looked at the 33x12.5, but I'm concerned about my weak stearing system. The skinnier 10.5 should be less stress. And the 10.5 are about $40 cheaper than the 12.5. My only concern is sinking deeper in the mud, but should be fine.

Thanks again!

 

[MARKTLC80]

Looks good!!!

 

[sandcruiser]

be aware that 33x10.50r15 is not the same as a 255/85r16
I don't know if it is the extra 1" of wheel or if there is some other difference in sidewall construction, but I've heard from several people that the 33x10.50 feels less stable than the 255/85

just an observation

 

[azcromntic]

Wouldn't the skinnier tread give you less traction than say a 285 (can't remember if its 285/70 or 285/75), anyway...

 

[crawlin40]

Bighorns?

Anybody look into the Maxxis Bighorns in this size? In Overland Journal there was a nice write-up on a newer 4runner and the owner stated he really liked the Bighorns in 255/85r16. They can be found a good amount cheaper than the BFGs. Under $175 I believe.

 

[northernrighty]

q78-15lt is about 36x10. My buckshots are amazing, but will get you in trouble if there is no bottom. Use the skinny pedal when nessesary.

 

[Flank]

be aware that 33x10.50r15 is not the same as a 255/85r16
I don't know if it is the extra 1" of wheel or if there is some other difference in sidewall construction, but I've heard from several people that the 33x10.50 feels less stable than the 255/85

just an observation

I know the KM2 is an E rated tire - more stiff construction and heavier sidewall = more stability. The 33x10.5 will usually be a c or d rated tire, if I am not mistaken.

I don't rightly know if most or all 255s are e rated, but they get used a lot in Dually (dual tire) applications, thus the e rating the the KM2 and the dual load rating. rated for 3000 lbs in a dual tire application, and 3400 lbs in a single tire application.

 

[greentruck]

Wouldn't the skinnier tread give you less traction than say a 285 (can't remember if its 285/70 or 285/75), anyway...

Maybe, maybe not. One theory has it that the actual contact area is longer with the skinnies, thus more than making up for the traction lost in a narrower section width. Others say a wider tire is going to have better traction, because that seems obvious just by looking at a tire.

Then you throw in air pressure, braking forces, tread compound, and many other factors, so who knows re the "facts."

On the other hand, I like the lighter steering feel they gave to the truck (had old Michilens before, so not a direct comparison to the KM2s in 285 flavor) and appreciate the reduced air drag and (marginally) lower weight; it's gotta help just a little in lower wear and tear and higher mpg. Then there's the aesthetic thing. The skinnies make the truck look taller than those 285s (Gee honey, you sure look fat in those pants.)

Those factors and whatever else that make a difference between 255s and 285s is probably less important on any given day than the driving skills of the operator.

 

[azcromntic]

Maybe, maybe not. ... Those factors and whatever else that make a difference between 255s and 285s is probably less important on any given day than the driving skills of the operator.

I have to agree with you there. I do think on black-top (driving to grandma's house or something), in say slick or icy conditions, even the smallest difference could mean staying on the road. Then again, driver ability and airing down the tires would probably mute any argument.

How about side wall height? I didn't really read this thread that well so maybe someone already commented on it. With a sidewall at 85% height ... man, that's kinda risky on a tilt or around a corner isn't it?

 

[Enginerd]

Wouldn't the skinnier tread give you less traction than say a 285 (can't remember if its 285/70 or 285/75), anyway...

xprmntl posted this link on similar thread I started, and I thought it was such a good read I'm reposting it here. If I could find a 255 I liked (and could afford), I'd be all in.

Expeditions West: Tire Selection for Expedition Travel

 

[greentruck]

I have to agree with you there. I do think on black-top (driving to grandma's house or something), in say slick or icy conditions, even the smallest difference could mean staying on the road. Then again, driver ability and airing down the tires would probably mute any argument.

How about side wall height? I didn't really read this thread that well so maybe someone already commented on it. With a sidewall at 85% height ... man, that's kinda risky on a tilt or around a corner isn't it?

azcromntic,
It's probably easier to talk about units like air pressure. I'm sure each tire has it's own deformation index, or whatever the call how that varies with air pressure. Personally, I tend to go by the seat of my pants.

The KM2s in 255 have a max pressure of something like 80 psi. I've been running them around town at 40 to 42 psi. When we hitched up the rig for a shakedown camping trip in its new configuration, I went to 50 psi. Everything handled well at highway speeds and on rough roads. Nothing so challenging as to air down, so we didn't, but it rode and handled well with everything we threw at them. Got home, trailer unhitched and things unloaded and 50 psi was pretty jarring around town, so we're back to a comfortable 42 psi.

Another user reported a feeling of some tippiness, but never indicated the psi. I found them very easy to get used to when we stepped up from the tired Michelin MTXs. I suppose the 255s give away some ultimate handling to the 285s, I really wouldn't want to be drifting the 80 to find out what that was. YMMV


Enginerd,
Yep, that'd be the link to Skinnie Theorie

 

[Flank]

I suppose the 255s give away some ultimate handling to the 285s, I really wouldn't want to be drifting the 80 to find out what that was. YMMV

Amen to that, Brutha!

 

[iptman]

I did notice a little more squirlliness on the 255s than the Michelins on the road. Seems reasonable that a wider tire would track straighter than a skinnier tire. The new steering stabilizer helped a lot though.

Added a couple side shots as requested (via PM).

 

[Chef J]

To those who have skinnies, how to they track on road, especially at highway speed?

 

[johns94cruiser]

Looking at tire rack weight specs, 255/85 still weigh about as much as 285/75. Anyone running 255 notice a drop in mileage/performance on stock gears vs stock 275/70s?

I know frontal area plays a hand in wind drag. I would like to go the tall skinny route, at least for winter tires but don't want to lose what 'performance' I have to heavier tires.